Re: [RFC][PATCH] ppc: Implement save_stack_trace_regs()
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Date: 2015-12-09 01:03:41
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 19:28 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:20:22 +1100 Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 13:50 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:quoted
It has come to my attention that kprobe event stack tracing does not work on powerpc.
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c index ea43a347a104..0142c86801ba 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c@@ -61,3 +61,10 @@ void save_stack_trace_tsk(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stack_trace *trace) save_context_stack(trace, tsk->thread.ksp, tsk, 0); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(save_stack_trace_tsk); + +void +save_stack_trace_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, struct stack_trace *trace) +{ + save_context_stack(trace, regs->gpr[PT_R1], current, 0);In the kernel we would normally use just '1' here rather than 'PT_R1', but it's not a huge deal. Should I take this via powerpc or do you want it to go in via tracing?You can take it. And you can replace the PT_R1 if you want. I just noticed that it was defined, and I try to use macro names instead of hard coded numbers. I was actually looking for a "PT_SP" :-)
OK thanks. Looks like we actually have: #define kernel_stack_pointer(regs) ((regs)->gpr[1]) So that would be the most self documenting way to do it I guess, though I've never actually seen that macro used anywhere before :) cheers